Beta Test

Some times a year you just end up with one of those C-class movies, and this time it was Beta Test. Though the plot was quit interesting (the obvious reason why I watched it; almost as from an Ernest Cline novel), the movie in total was awful. The acting was lousy (cheap pron stars?) and the director obviously had better things to do than being on the set; no drive, no mind twisting turns. Nothing but amateur fighting to keep the movie afloat.

Highlight? Only 83 minutes of your life gone.

3/10 for being a movie the Cohen brothers, J.J.Abrahms or the likes could turn into something quite cool.

Hey, it's just a fun, mindless romp of urban science fiction with a great plot, decent directing, some sketchy dialog, good and bad acting, and you can even write a love poem while watching it and never miss a thing.

There is even a very 'Ballsy' stoke of genius in this movie, in that the scene from about 104:12 to 110:12 is a continuous shot. 6 full minutes. That took guts. I have to respect anyone who would do that and be willing to risk the whole movie. There was obvious no real risk here, and that's probably why it worked.

For the whiners out there who constantly wail: "I want my 2 hours back!" "Worst movie ever!" "I walked out in the first 10 minutes."...Just shut the hell up. You really do NOT how to watch a movie using basic 'discernment' techniques rather than judging the hell out of it like an old, angry housewife.

See, discernment allows an evaluation to grow while a judgement puts an idea or concept inside a contemplative box where it can never evolve beyond that place within your own mind where you originally judged it. That is indeed the most wretched excess of a personal 'opinion'. It wastes everyone's time and energy. You reviewers who prattle on like wounded princesses here are seriously lacking in the most basic of intellectual evaluations skills and shouldn't even be posting your reviews with educated adults. Jesus...

So, in regards to ANY movie, when you see the trailer and read some professional reviews, you pretty much know what you're in for. But anyone who plays the 'princess-victim' of utter disappointment after spending a dollar at Red Box seriously needs to ease off the meds.

...or at LEAST take some creative writing classes.

At the time of my review this is carrying a 7.1 score on IMDb. I'm left wondering if the user votes on this movie are bought from some click-farm in India.

So the premise of the movie is a chump who is the ultimate beta- tester for a game studio who gets to beta test a new game, only to find out he is actually controlling someone else in real life. As events unfold the uber-beta tester decides to "do the right thing" even under penalty of death.

As you can imagine, a movie that mixes video games and real-life footage has to be brilliantly convincing. This is not the case. At all. This carries, at best, SyFy production values in a movie with terrible CGI, awful acting and the result is, shamefully, something the actors will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

The "biggest fight scene" tries to cash in on Daredevil and the likes, but the premise is so contrived (and the execution so poor/unconvincing) that you'll avert your eyes or start laughing.

Sorry click-farmers... this is horrible.

BTW: if you remain unconvinced that this is not even worthy of a TV Movie, please bear in mind that it grossed $9000 box-office. mmmkkay?

Not 7.1. Not unless that is a scale of shittiness.

First off, I don't understand all the hate aimed at the people giving this movie a bad review. Come on.. it's bad.

Full of bravado and terribly weak story telling. To get this high of a ranking.. I call foul. Somethings broken in IMDb.

Second.. Graphics.. Poor.

Acting... Poor.

Writing... Completely predictable.

Directing... Now I'm not going to cut you down.. I've never tried to direct a movie. But damn, dude.. Your production values were pretty decent. Your actors were capable. And the cinematography was alright. So I'm thinking it comes down to you. I'm guessing your a nice guy, cause you should have reshot so many scenes and you know.. directed your actors.

There was nothing here worth watching. Ya, I know.. if I don't like it then don't. I honestly kept watching because I wanted to know how it earned such high reviews. But seriously man. This is bad. I mean, make a IMDb account just to complain about it's rating bad.

Totally unbelievable start to finish, especially the scene where a game maker.. someone who spends there life behind a screen and building the social dynamics needed to produce a game just happens to be able to kick 30 security officers butts in a row and walk on like it's just another Tuesday. (And that voice.. It's like watching a dumbed down duke nukem spoof)

Or how about the security officer holding his gun on the gamer while he lets him walk his puppet into the house and beat him. Right.. Sure.. everyone that dumb.

Sword scene on the roof while the blond stands emotionless and helplessly by.. wow man.. .. just wow.. There isn't enough testosterone in the world to excuse the ego here.

Someone in IMDb needs to look into this, seriously.. Things like this will ruin your credibility. This is a 3... max.

The only person here showing any acting chops at all was the gamer.. and he unfortunately couldn't hold up this pile. Koodos for trying though bro.

After seeing the rating for this on here (currently at 7.0, although I suspect that will change) I thought that this might actually be really good.

But uhm, let's just say I think the director have a lot of good friends who are kind with their ratings.

It's not completely awful, but it's not that great either.

I've always liked Larenz Tate so it's cool to see him in something new, so there is always that, and he hasn't aged a day in 20 years (he's 41 believe it or not).

He plays a gamer who's been given a beta version of the latest game bound to conquer global fandom, and the plot is decent enough but it's just such a low-budget film and that shows in every aspect of the movie.

First of all the "game" that he's playing looks like it's well over 10 years old, and it simply doesn't make any sense why they couldn't just use real footage in the game scenes instead. Then at least Larenz would have a clear reason to be so blown away by the details in the game.

And the "twist" about the game of course would have made A lot more sense too.

Kevon Stover is one of the bad guys, and his attempts at being so stereotypically tough would make even Hulk Hogan cringe. I suppose that could be intentional to get a bit of 90's video-game feel to the character. But yeah, he's a chippendale appearantly which doesn't come as a surprise at all.

The first hour is still semi-watchable if you manage to look past the flaws but the last 25 minutes is a bit of a drag to say the least.